Michael Gerson, a Wheaton College graduate and former speech-writer for President George W. Bush, has written a very good article in The Atlantic magazine (April 28th issue) entitled “The Last Temptation.”
Gerson offers a valuable critique of both (1) the damaging Faustian bargain American evangelicals have made with the Republican party, and (2) the (now forgotten) history of 19th century evangelical social/justice activism.
Gerson laments the ephemeral, and largely reactionary, nature of evangelical social action today. He says, rightly I think, that “[evangelicalism] lacks a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action…[in contrast to Roman Catholicism which] developed a coherent, comprehensive tradition of social and political reflection.”
Curiously, Scott McKnight responded to Gerson with a critical post at his blog Jesus Creed. The post is called “What Gerson Got Seriously Wrong.” McKnight begins by calling Gerson’s arguments “belabored” and “tired.” But he takes particular offense at Gerson’s comparison of evangelical and Catholic understandings of social activism. McKnight insists that evangelicals indeed DO have “an organizing theory of social action.” It can be found in the writings of Francis Schaeffer, who was embodying the political theology of Dutch theologian/politician, Abraham Kuyper.
But Gerson is right and McKnight is mistaken.
Let me note a few points:
First, McKnight’s arguments strike me as an odd example of straining at gnats – and bogus gnats, at that – while swallowing camels. He focuses on a small part of Gerson’s critique while ignoring the greater substance of his article. Why the lucid restatement of a case that begs for frequent repetition should be called belabored and tired, is beyond me.
Second, McKnight’s reference to Kuyper and his American, evangelical
legacy actually underscores the oddity of McKnight’s defensiveness.
To begin with, Kuyper’s name and legacy is not widely known throughout American evangelicalism. In fact, McKnight covertly admits as much himself. For Kuyper’s programmatic book, _Lectures on Calvinism_, was not the book being assigned as required reading for Wheaton students when Gerson was there. Rather, the assigned text was Niebuhr’s _Christ and Culture_.
The reason for this was simple. Kuyper’s work had minimal influence in this country beyond the Dutch Reformed church.
For McKnight to lift up Francis Schaeffer as the emissary of Kuyper’s social/political theology – a system that does indeed offer a positive alternative to the reactionary, negative politics practiced by evangelicals today – is simply not true.
Francis Schaeffer was the faithful disciple of Cornelius Van Til, not Abraham Kuyper. Van Til is best remembered for his presuppositional epistemology. Van Til insisted that, since Christians and non-Christians do not share the same presuppositions about life, it is impossible for us all to share in the same goals. Schaeffer’s oppositional, us/them mentality bleeds through almost every page of his writings.
Actually, Schaeffer’s main contribution to evangelical political engagement was his laser-like focus on opposing abortion.
And, in my opinion, Gerson is absolutely correct when he includes evangelical anti-abortion folks – Schaeffer’s activist children and grandchildren – as among the most reactionary, negative, self-pitying Christian forces today. It was Francis Schaeffer, not Abraham Kuyper, who expressed a social/political world-view that started American evangelicalism’s journey down the road of unethical, accomodationist, anti-gospel political expediency that we find ourselves traveling today.
Finally, Gerson highlights some crucial problems with today’s evangelicals. His historical survey is an important reminder of where our evangelical roots truly lie. It should be applauded and disseminated widely. Professor McKnight’s complaints, however, are petty in comparison to the task now facing the American church, as described by Gerson.
I have watched and read a bit on Frankie Jr lately. Though
negative about his fathers fundamentalism, etc., did end up
defending many of Francis’s life practices etc.
I have read 1 of Frankie’s novels and attempted to read 2 of his tell-all books about his family. For a time he appeared to be Democracy Now’s “go to” guy for discussions of American Christianity. Thankfully, that alliance seems to have ended. He is not a half bad novelist. I find his autobiography tawdry and distasteful.